The Virginian

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Secretary of State John Kerry faced swift criticism Wednesday for suggesting the terror attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport was evidence the Islamic State is getting “desperate” – an assessment one top Republican official said “defies reality.”

Kerry made the remarks late Tuesday at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, referring to ISIS by the name Daesh.

Crediting coalition efforts, Kerry said it’s been over a year since the group launched a “full-scale military offensive.”

"Now, yes, you can bomb an airport, you can blow yourself up. That's the tragedy. Daesh and others like it know that we have to get it right 24/7/365. They have to get it right for ten minutes or one hour. So it's a very different scale,” Kerry said. "And if you're desperate and if you know you’re losing, and you know you want to give up your life, then obviously you can do some harm.”

“They’ve said they’re on the run for many years, and they’re not,” McCaul told Fox News Wednesday morning. “I think the airstrikes have ramped up external operations … This is an unprecedented pace of terror in modern times. And so to say they’re on the run … absolutely defies reality.”

This has the whiff of Hitler ordering non-existent divisions to attack Russia.

Apparently Obama's, Hillary's, and Kerry's plan is to show how much we're #Winning by allowing them to murder us at whim.

There’s a level of anger far deeper and more consequential than expressed rage or visible behavior, it’s called Cold Anger.

Cold Anger does not need to go to violence. For those who carry it, no conversation is needed when we meet. You cannot poll or measure it; specifically most who carry it avoid discussion. And that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of correctness.

We watched the passage of Obamacare at 1:38am on the day before Christmas Eve in 2009. We watched the Senate, then the House attempt passing Amnesty in 2014. We’ve watched the $900 billion Stimulus Bill being spent each year, every year, for seven consecutive years. Omnibus, Porkulous, QE1, QE2, Bailouts, Crony-Capitalism.

Cold Anger absorbs betrayal silently, often prudently.

We’ve waited each year, every year, for eight years, to see a federal budget, only to be given another $2 trillion Omnibus spending bill by Speaker Ryan. We’ve watched the ridiculing of cops, the riots, and the lack of support for laws, or their enforcement. We’ve been absorbing.

Cold Anger is not hatred, it is far more purposeful.

Cold Anger takes notice of the liars, even from a great distance – seemingly invisible to the mob. Cold Anger will still hold open the door for the riot goer. Mannerly. We’ve watched our borders being intentionally unsecured. We’ve watched Islamic Terrorists slaughter Americans as our politicians proclaim their uncertainty of motive.

Cold Anger when evidenced is more severe because it is more strategic. Eric Cantor, the Brexit and Donald Trump might aide your understanding.

Cold Anger does not gloat; it absorbs consistent vilification and ridicule as fuel. This sensibility does not want to exist, it is forced to exist in otherwise unwilling hosts – who also refuse to be destabilized by it.

Transgender bathrooms appear seemingly more important than border security. Employment and standard of living in Vietnam and Southeast Asia appears more important to Washington DC, than the financial security of Youngstown Ohio. We didn’t create that impression, we are simply responding to the reality afore us.

Deliberate intent and prudence will insure avoiding failure. The course, is thoughtful vigilance; a strategy devoid of emotion.

Foolishness and betrayal of our nation have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise.

Cold Anger is not driven to act in spite of itself; it drives a reckoning.

When the well attired lady leaves the checkout line carrying steaks and shrimp using an EBT card, the door is still held open for her; yet notations necessarily embed.

When the U.S. flags lay gleefully undefended, they do not lay unnoticed. When the stars and stripes are controversial, yet the Mexican flag is honored – we are paying attention.

When a school community cannot openly pray, it does not mean the prayerful were absent. When a liar seems to win, it is not without observation. Many – more than the minority would like to admit – know the difference between science and clocks and political agendas.

Cold Anger perceives deception the way a long-term battered spouse absorbs the blow in the hours prior to the pre-planned exit; with purpose.

A shield, or cry of micro-aggression will provide no benefit, nor quarter. Delicate sensibilities are dispatched like a feather in a hurricane. Pushed far enough, decisions are reached.

A recent study that was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab has learned that Chicago criminals do not acquire their guns from gun shops, gun shows or the internet.

The study examined and interviewed inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who are either facing current gun charges, or have a background consisting of firearms related convictions.

The study learned that virtually zero criminals have ever used the internet or gun shows, because that method is easily traceable. It’s much safer for a criminal to acquire firearms on the streets where they’re harder to keep track of, and that’s most criminals method of choice.

Furthermore, University of Chicago Crime lab co-director, Harold Pollack, said that criminals “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

What would we do without experts? And this is why more gun laws don't work.

I wonder if this will come as news to the editors of the Virginian Pilot who seem fixated on ending gun violence by passing more laws keeping criminals from getting guns. But then, the Virginian Pilot writers and editors drive for gun control laws is really a lie. They want you disarmed because a disarmed people are more easily controlled by the government and they are the Party of Government. Fascists with a smiley face.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has 42 percent to Republican Donald Trump's 40 percent - too close to call - as American voters say neither candidate would be a good president and that the campaign has increased hatred and prejudice in the nation, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

This compares to results of a June 1 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University, showing Clinton edging Trump 45 - 41 percent.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.

A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.

Drudge Take on Hillary and Huma

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment was in full display on social media last night. Journalists and academics seemed to feel that they had not made it sufficiently clear that people who oppose open borders are a bunch of racist rubes who couldn’t count to 20 with their shoes on, and hence will believe any daft thing they’re told. Given how badly this strategy had just failed, this seemed a strange time to be doubling down. But perhaps, like the fellow I once saw lose a packet by betting on 17 for 20 straight turns of the roulette wheel, they reasoned that the recent loss actually makes a subsequent victory more likely, since the number has to come up sometime.

Or perhaps they were just unable to grasp what I noted in a column last week: that nationalism and place still matter, and that elites forget this at their peril. A lot people do not view their country the way some elites do: as though the nation were something like a rental apartment -- a nice place to live, but if there are problems, or you just fancy a change, you’ll happily swap it for a new one.

In many ways, members of the global professional class have started to identify more with each other than they have with the fellow residents of their own countries. Witness the emotional meltdown many American journalists have been having over Brexit.

And from a larger perspective:

A lot of my professional colleagues seemed to, and the dominant tone framed this as a blow against the enlightened “us” and the beautiful world we are building, struck by a plague of morlocks who had crawled out of their hellish subterranean world to attack our impending utopia. You could also, I’d argue, see this sentiment in the reaction of global markets, which was grossly out of proportion to the actual economic damage that is likely to be done by Brexit. I mean, yes, the British pound took a pounding, and no surprise. But why did this so roil markets for the Mexican peso? Did traders fear that the impact on the global marmite supply was going to unsettle economies everywhere?

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Within 24 hours of the Brexit victory its disruptive effects made many argue it was a mistake; that it would not be long before a repentant Britain was pushing its face against the cold glass doors of the Euro cafe, wistfully eyeing the delicacies now out of its foolish reach. Yet others have argued in the same breath it would be Europe with its face pressed against the glass, longing the other way round....

Douthat's observation it was a pre-existing crisis in the EU which brought about Brexit must be taken as central. Countries don't usually walk out on a good thing without a reason just as passengers don't leave 50,000 ton ocean liners for wooden boats without motivation.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Scott Adams on "gun control" from the Democrat and Republican perspectives.

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”

—

*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

Monday, June 20, 2016

You really can't blame Marteen for liking Hillary. She's just so damn likable.

Omar and I continued to have infrequent conversations over the next few years. I last saw him at a dinner at his father’s house in January. We talked about the presidential election and debated our views of the candidates that were running – he liked Hillary Clinton and I liked Bernie Sanders.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Last weekend, a 29-year-old Islamist radical slaughtered 49 innocent people at a gay nightclub in central Florida. In response, Congress must immediately strip taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood. This well-funded special interest group generously finances friendly legislators' campaigns, in exchange for which those politicians obstinately oppose any and all common sense restrictions on abortion -- regardless of strong public support for increased regulations. They are on the wrong side of history. The American people are horrified by Planned Parenthood's business model, which relies on the unregulated killing of unborn humans. This systematic extinguishing of human life fuels a culture of death in which Orlando shooter Omar Mateen marinated for nearly three decades. Planned Parenthood has contributed heavily to this morally-polluted environment, which devalues and dehumanizes innocent life, just like radical Islamism does.

There is a word for Planned Parenthood's role in this form of terrorism: complicity. Democrats in Congress must be held to account for their routine legislative defense of this organization, which should be stripped of all taxpayer funding as soon as possible. The pro-death atmosphere Cecile Richards' outfit helps create continues to put Americans at risk. Have we learned nothing from these acts of terrorism? An all-male Supreme Court may have ruled that abortion is a constitutionally-protected right, even though our founding document is silent on the issue, but that supposed "right" is killing us right now. Granted, cutting off public funding for Planned Parenthood may not have prevented what happened at the Pulse nightclub, and it may not stop future atrocities. But it we can save just one life, not to mention the countless lives targeted by abortionists, it will be worth it.

Read the whole thing.

This may be satire, but if we use the Obama frame of reference, it’s actually true. Islam hates the West, calls America “the Great Satan” because of our culture. American culture blankets the world. It’s a threat to Islamic culture because it threatens to seduce Islamic youth just as it has all over the world. It’s incredibly attractive. So Imams rail against the things that are the most visible features of modernism in the West: revealing clothing, alcohol, pop music, open sexuality in life and in all forms of entertainment, homosexuality, feminism, abortion. Then ask yourself who is largely responsible for creating the things that are most hated by devout Muslims. We find that those who ask “why do they hate us” really need only look in the mirror. To make Islam hate us less, we must cover-up, bring back prohibition, outlaw not just homosexuality but also sex outside of marriage, repeal the 19th amendment, and shut down Planned Parenthood. Oh, and also shut down Hollywood.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Obama Era Euphemisms about the Global War On Terror

Of course Obama has no intention of effectively waging a war on terror, unless he can target Bitter Clingers. But from PJ Media here's partial list.

“Outliers" is their kinder, gentler term for "rogue states”

“Al-Qaeda core” are the al-Qaeda terrorists who survived the Bush presidency, then regrouped and multiplied under the Obama presidency. They are not in any way, shape or form "decimated."

“Overseas contingency operations” is the Obama administration's Orwellian term for "the global war on terror."

“Man-caused disaster” is the Obama-speak for "terrorist attack."

"Workplace violence" is how the Obama administration describes Islamic terrorist attacks that take place at work.

"Violent extremism" is how the Obama administration prefers to describe terrorism because it gives them an opportunity to lump Islamists in with the KKK, IRA, and Nazi skinhead groups who all together commit about 1% (or less) of the terrorism we see throughout the world

“Kinetic military action” is how the Obama administration says "war" without upsetting anti-war groups.

"Leading from behind" is Obama's euphemism for his "CYA" approach to foreign policy. It translates roughly to, "we'll wait until it's too late to be effective, and when pressured, take some modest steps, but don't blame us when the excrement hits the fan." (Because it will.)

"Strategic patience" is related to Obama's "leading from behind" philosophy. The administration uses it in place of "dithering," or "kicking the can down the road for the next president to have to deal with."

If you're a Christian you're responsible for the massacre in Orlando

That Donald Trump has always been an open book and there’s absolutely no need of “opposition research” has always been clear to us. To put it all together in this slim volume should have been the work of a summer intern searching the Internet on a lazy afternoon. But we suspect that the Killer of Benghazi probably had scores of employees on the case because that’s how she rolls.

The real news from yesterday is that the Generalissimo of Liberalism – the NY Times – thinks that Christians are responsible for the massacre in Orlando.

“Omar Mateen shattered the tenuous, hard-fought sense of personal safety that many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have begun to feel as the movement for equality has made significant gains in recent years. His bullets and the blood he left behind that early morning were a reminder that in many corners of the country, gay and transgender people are still regarded as sinners and second-class citizens who should be scorned.

While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.”

Make no mistake, this is the way that the rest of the MSM thinks. This is what the people who bring you their funhouse-mirrors version of reality at ABCNBCCBSNPR and its local affiliates in cities and towns across the nation believe. Keep in mind the Prime Directive: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

Keep one other thing in mind, if Hillary Clinton is elected this is what she believes. And she and her fellow travelers will run the country. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you I don’t know what will.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

The NY Times, which is known for sliming Republicans would have you believe that the FBI has 150 agents on the case of not be investigation Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business as a criminal act.

Noting that President Obama had officially endorsed Mrs. Clinton on Thursday, Mr. Trump added, “First time ever, by the way, a president of the United States endorsed somebody under criminal investigation.”

But that assertion also goes beyond the known facts. The FBI is investigating Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server, but agents have not yet interviewed her and it is not clear if she herself is a target of a criminal inquiry.

Apparently "reporter" Ashley Parker has not gotten the message the the FBI does not do security reviews, it conducts criminal investigations.

As an immigrant to this country, I have always been amazed at the lack of understanding and cross-pollination that exists between small and big-town America. Few of my urban American-born IT coworkers have ever traveled the country by car as I do, on smaller roads through small towns and farms. The stories and photos I bring back makes them wonder as if they are from some forgotten Asian jungle - and perhaps reinforce their reasoning and resolve never to visit such backward places. But the people who live there are mostly honest folk - simply Americans. And, coming from another culture coming apart under the assault of globalization, it breaks my heart to speak to them and listen to their stories. I am of course, generalizing , but many really feel left behind : it seems in a multicultural America, bent on integrating the latest fashionable minority, and catering through main media channels, fashion, movies, art and politics to larger urban centers and their dwellers - there is little place left for the God-abiding, law-respecting, family-loving, hard-working individual that used to be called the common man and it's now called a bigot, gun-toting, racist, homophobic troglodyte. Who speaks for these guys among today's presidential candidates? You have one guess.

Because my aim here is to present analysis, I'm going to try and keep my personal feelings out of this. But as a proud former-member of the Working Class who comes from a Working Class family, and still lives among the Working Class (my neighbors are made up of Marines, electricians, and construction workers), I think it is fair to assume that I speak for many when I say that the unforgivable assaults on the decency, integrity, intelligence (and even the right to exist), of Trump's working class supporters only served to further breed an already-exploding resentment against the Republican Establishment, and by extension their preferred candidates.

In my 35 years of watching politics, I have never seen a political party's elites attack and demean millions of their own voters.

...

Even Bill Kristol's hand-picked third party savior is guilty of this.

Not only is this class supremacism morally illiterate, un-American, and wildly hypocritical (especially when you are accusing others of bigotry), tactically it is a suicide mission.

AND

Once #NeverTrump became an official hashtag and movement, all the principled criticisms of Trump (many of which are valid), were lost beneath what was #NeverTrump's oft-stated goal: to game the convention rules in order to disenfranchise The People's Choice.

Hey, I've heard all the arguments… The fuzzy math (which I'll get to) of Trump failing to achieve 50% support; the hale and hearty "delegate rules are delegate rules" pronouncements; the argument that we are not a direct democracy…

Sorry, no.

The Smart People laughing like Thurston Howell III at Trump for failing to grasp at why it was "perfectly valid" that he would win a state's primary and then lose that state's delegates, were also laughing at me and millions of other voters equally infuriated.

I've been following presidential politics since I was 14 years old. I'm no dummy. And I had no idea the GOP primary game was rigged in this way.

Rationalize all you want, the bottom line is that you cannot as a political party present and promote what looks like a public election for a nominee and then pull the rug out from under your own voters when it doesn't go your way.

We have a ruling elite that hates the societies that produce them.

Or the conference before the Visegrad 4 one or something like that. Lots of people earnestly talking about cooperation and Europe and stuff. Definitely the B team on display which was why I just scraped into an invite. Frances Coppolla and I did a panel, should Greece leave the euro? Which Frances has already talked about (my answer, Hell Yes, everyone should leave, it’s an idiot way to run a continent).

The interesting bit was how scary it was in fact. The groupthink is strong in this arena. There is no questioning of the goal, even if it’s not clearly delineated. That ever closer union is just assumed: how to bring it about being the only difference anyone has. I was the only truly eurosceptic person there and I wasn’t on the panel discussing eurosceptics for example (Frances is reasonable on this subject where I am not).

At one stage I pointed out that fiscal union simply was not going to happen. Europeans just are not going to allow 15-20% of GDP to be distributed through Brussels, which is what would be needed for the automatic stabilisers to operate properly so that the eurozone comes even close to being an optimal currency area. To do that really does mean German taxes paying Greek pensions.

It. Will. Not. Happen.

Not this century at least.

Everyone was shocked: how could you say such a thing? And anyway, we need to work out how to make this happen not think of why it cannot.

Approved for All Audiences

Hollywood is under high pressure from various left-wing groups to bring its business fully in line with political correctness. After the Southern California ACLU claimed that the movie industry didn’t have enough female directors, no fewer than two federal agencies launched investigations into Tinseltown’s hiring practices. Blacks have threatened to boycott the Academy Awards if the Motion Picture Academy doesn’t start handing out Affirmative Action Oscars. And Twitter pests are pushing studios to make Captain America gay, Princess Elsa lesbian, and James Bond female.

In response, one of Hollywood’s top studios has now announced plans for a new tentpole picture scheduled for release next Kwaanza—a superhero extravaganza entitled Social Justice League of America: Age of Imaginary Problems. The blockbuster will be written and directed by Lena Dunham, who will also play the lead role of Cecily Shrillwine.

According to a studio press release, Shrillwine is a brilliant nuclear physicist who angrily quits MIT after a sexist professor evicts her from class merely because she doesn’t know any math. Shrillwine retires to her private laboratory hidden on the cliffs of Mount Grievance and there begins a series of secret experiments to determine exactly how little a person can contribute to society while still complaining about being underpaid.

On Thursday, news website SourceFed posted a video showing how results are manipulated. It explained that when users type "Hillary Clinton Ind" into Google, the top recommendations are "India" and "Indiana." When users type the same thing into competitors Bing or Yahoo!, the top result is "indictment," a word that does not appear anywhere in Google's recommendations. The disparity came in spite of the fact that "indictment" is searched on Google eight times more often than "Hillary Clinton India."

Thursday, June 09, 2016

The rationale for belonging to La Raza

A comment in the Wall Street Journal is a perfect illustration of why an ambitious attorney and judge would be part of La Raza Lawyer's Association.

The judge may not be a member of "bad" groups, because of ethics and professional, judicial employment reasons. Being a member of a legally distinct group is a technicality that the judge may trot out to explain away membership and still remain in bounds ethically.

HOWEVER, since 100% of the population infers that LR Lawyers is de facto LR membership, the desired effect is achieved. He is "one of us" for those who care about such matters.

It is extremely duplicitous, and in my book, it ought to be shunned in the highest judicial circles--at least the Senate could use that as a non-confirmation criteria.

Being a member of an ethnic affiliation group is not problematic per se. What becomes problematic is when the group "advocates", and even more so if the demographic is a sizable fraction of the population. The likelihood of a built-in conflict of interest increases dramatically with the size of the demographic.

Translation: if you're a member of KKK Lawyers Association but the group says it's not part of the "bad" KKK you send the message to racists that you care about their issues. If the KKK is some fringe group whose membership can meet in a phone both that's not a big issue. It becomes a big issue if a large part of the population is racist. Now your bigotry is amplified and justified by a lot of people. That how people get lynched and the murderers are never convicted.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Scott Adams who has been remarkably correct about Trump’s success has a new blog post our about The Robot Judge.

“Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.”

So the opposition is unlimbering the big guns: Trump’s a racist! Sure, the judge belongs to La Raza Lawyers Association, not the racist La Raza that wants the southwest US returned to Mexico … although it lists the racist La Raza as part of its “community.” Curiel’s group is just a group that boycotts Trump’s products and companies.

Here’s a thought experiment: imagine a “KKK Lawyers of California” --not the same detestable KKK, simply an association of white lawyers. Good to go? Want to have your case heard by them, black man?

Monday, June 06, 2016

Thirty years ago, most Americans felt they could, to some degree, relate to the people who ruled over them. The politicians did not tool around in armored vehicles or have armed men in mirrored sunglasses guarding them. The so-called “public servants” were not highly compensated, even if they did not work very hard. The members of the commentariat were few in number and they worked hard to present themselves as normal people. There was a gap, for sure, but it did not feel like a huge gap.

A lot has changed and today it feels to most people like we have been colonized by pod people from another planet. They sort of look like us and make familiar noises, but they are not us. They are alien. Every day they say things that suggest they are just visiting our planet. President Obama makes the sort of “gaffes” a person makes when they have been trained to sound like a person, but maybe did not pay strict attention in human class. Hillary Clinton often sounds like a stroke victim learning to talk again.

Imagine that you can go back in time and have a conversation with your younger self, maybe explaining events of today. Since my audience is getting younger all of a sudden, I’ll keep this bit of make believe relatable for all ages. Imagine you go back to 2005 and meet your 2005 self with all the knowledge and experience of your 2016 self. I’m picking 2005 because that precedes the collapse of the Bush presidency and the beginning of the manic phase of the Great Progressive Awakening that started in the 90’s.

Now, 2016 you sits down with the 2005 you and says, “In a decade, our black Muslim president, who may be bisexual (Google Reggie Love), will issue an edict forcing schools to let mentally ill men in dresses into restrooms, so they can watch your daughter pee. The Republican Party will sneak a provision into a mammoth budget bill legalizing this edict. When challenged, the President will claim the Christian Bible requires it.”

It is reasonable to assume that your 2005 self would think your 2016 self had gone insane or was pulling some absurd joke. A normal person in 2005 could not imagine that serious people would be talking about trannies at all, much less allowing them a free shot at children in restrooms. Think about it, in 2005, Obama and Hillary Clinton were against homosexual marriage. Now, Clinton is a click away from coming out as a lesbian.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Over on the legal battleground, the Supreme Court recently decided that marriage, which, we will recall, is a form of institutionalized misogynist sexual exploitation, is also a fundamental human right, and should be available to any two humans who want to get matrimonial. That’s okay with me: I believe our society will benefit from more stable relationships, whomever the participants.

But that’s not good enough for sore winners. Now clergy will be forced by law to perform marriages for same-sex couples. While it’s still perfectly legal for a Presbyterian minister to decline to marry a couple of heterosexual Methodists simply because they aren’t members of the congregation, he will be committing a crime if he refuses to perform nuptials for two dudes who are shopping for a ceremonial backdrop. Here’s another loose end: If two women get married, which one is getting sexually exploited?